Please use this topic to discuss Mars One's plans to establish a human settlement on the Red Planet.

Hart SastrowardoyoMember

Posts: 2983From: Toms River, NJRegistered: Aug 2000

posted 01-08-2013 11:53 AM
Good news: Mars needs women... and men. Bad news: It's an eight-year commitment even before you get there. But if you want to get away from it all, they issued their requirements for astronaut selection:

Unique to all other space exploration endeavors before it, Mars One is opening the astronaut program to anyone on planet Earth that meets the base criteria. It is not necessary to have military training nor experience in flying aircraft nor even a science degree. It is most important that each applicant be intelligent, in good mental and physical health, and be willing to dedicate eight years to training and learning before making the journey to his or her new home on Mars.

SpaceAholicMember

Posts: 3598From: Sierra Vista, ArizonaRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 01-08-2013 07:46 PM
...and be willing to make a one way trip.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 04-22-2013 07:31 AM
Mars One release

Mars One launch astronaut selection on Youtube and Twitter

Mars One will launch its Astronaut Selection Program on the 22nd of April 2013 at a press conference in New York. The event will be streamed live on YouTube.

The briefing will be moderated by Emily Lakdawalla, Senior Editor at the Planetary Society. The panel will include:

You can be a part of the Q&A by sending us your questions and opinions via Twitter by using the hashtag #MarsOneLaunch.

David CMember

Posts: 466From: PasadenaRegistered: Apr 2012

posted 04-23-2013 12:36 PM
When's the closing date for applications?

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 04-23-2013 01:04 PM
Round One ends on August 31, 2013.

TykeanautMember

Posts: 2095From: Worcestershire, England, UK.Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-23-2013 01:16 PM
I hope I'm wrong but I can't see this happening by 2023.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 04-23-2013 01:48 PM
Their press conference left a lot to be desired. They were unwilling to elaborate on how they arrived at a $6 billion price tag for the mission, making it near impossible to assess their credibility.

And then there is how they plan to raise the $6 billion. They expect the bulk to be underwritten by the media rights.

To pay for the Mars mission, the Mars One foundation receives revenues from the license fee from the Interplanetary Media Group, sponsors, donations and the sales of merchandise. When the media interest grows, a large fraction of the revenues will come from the license fee that IMG pays to the Mars One foundation. The Mars One foundation currently holds about 90% of the shares in IMG. This means that the Mars One foundation will receive 90% of the profit of IMG besides the license fee - all funds that will be spent on the Human Mission to Mars.

"Because they were cheaper and shorter spaceflights. The key to the interest of people is doing something that is so great that it will capture the interest of everyone. If you do something that has been done before, like a suborbital flight, which was something that was even less dramatic than the first human to fly in space, this is just something that the people are not interested in. It is about the human adventure of discovering a new planet and that is something that people are interested in. It is exactly the greatness that makes it possible to finance this.

I believe there are several things wrong with Lansdorp's assertion, including the fact that people, in general, have a short attention span and the networks know this. Heck, the majority of the world lost interest in the moon landings after Apollo 11.

Another key point is why the previous reality TV shows built around a spaceflight have failed: it wasn't just the funding, but the inability of the networks to obtain insurance. Alan Boyle with NBC News touched on this point in his coverage of the Mars One press conference:

When it comes to reality TV, money and the willingness to take on risks are the keys to success, said Hollywood producer David Krieff. He should know: Ten years ago, Krieff helped put pop singer Lance Bass through Russian cosmonaut training for a reality-TV project that would have sent him to the International Space Station. The project fizzled out when TV executives, potential sponsors and insurers got cold feet.

Krieff had some words of advice for Mars One's organizers: "I wish them luck, but I would say have the money in the bank — and most of all, have all the liabilities taken care of," he said. "The risks and the insurance and the money is a lot of work. These things are always more expensive than you expect."

On edit: To clarify, I think the media rights to a manned mission to Mars could be huge, but I don't think they are reliable enough to fund the mission from the start. I think you could recoup a good part of any investment toward such a flight from media and ad buys, but to hinge the success of the flight on the networks seems less than a sure thing.

mode1charlieMember

Posts: 843From: Honolulu, HI, USARegistered: Sep 2010

posted 04-23-2013 11:41 PM

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:...to hinge the success of the flight on the networks seems less than a sure thing.

To say the least. I chided others for being negative about Inspiration Mars - a project that seems much more credible given that it has some level of funding and plausible hardware. So I'll try to avoid being negative and simply say that I'm deeply skeptical. Investors care about getting a return on their investment, and so given the very high possibility of a completely disastrous outcome it's hard to see how networks will be willing to pony up a very sizable amount of cash for such a project.

RonpurMember

Posts: 927From: Brandon, FlRegistered: May 2012

posted 04-24-2013 06:27 AM
I seriously worry what would happen to the colonists if the "show" is cancelled and the funds dry up for supplies. Having the crew starve or suffocate on the surface of Mars would be pretty horrifying. But, even having said that, I would still go!

RossMember

Posts: 426From: AustraliaRegistered: Jul 2003

posted 04-24-2013 09:29 AM

A realistic mission plan has been designed using only existing technology available through the private space industry

Are they kidding! Presently there is no rocket capable of doing the job, no spacecraft, no lander, major problems with a mission of that length which haven't been solved including protection from radiation, physiological and psychological questions. And I could name many more.

If NASA had Apollo type funding immediately they may be able to do it by 2023, although I suspect safety concerns would stretch it out closer to 2030. Remember, there are major problems going to Mars that weren't present going to the Moon. And some require innovations not yet developed (although they may be on someone's drawing board).

I hate to be a pessimist but no private company will be able to safely send people to Mars by 2023!

Launcher: Mars One anticipates use of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy, an upgraded version of the Falcon 9 which is in use by SpaceX now. The Falcon Heavy is slated to undergo test flights in 2013, granting ample time for fine-tuning prior to the Mars One missions which begin in 2016.

Lander: Mars One anticipates use of a variant of the SpaceX Dragon capsule, first tested in 2010. This is the same vehicle which successfully docked with the International Space Station (ISS) in May of 2012. The lander Mars One requires will be slightly larger than the current Dragon. The Lander will be used for 5 functions:

Life Support Unit: A Lander that contains the systems for the generation of energy, water and breathable air within the settlement.

Supply Unit: A Lander that contains food, spare parts and other smaller components.

Living Unit: This Unit is a Lander that is outfitted with a special inflatable section. After reaching the surface of Mars, this allows it to create a large living space for humans.

Human Lander: This is the unit which carries the astronauts to the surface of Mars.

Rover Lander: This is the unit which carries the rovers to the surface of Mars.

In a nutshell, they plan to land five modified Dragon capsules (SpaceX is already designing Dragon to have landing legs, much like their efforts with the Grasshopper test vehicle), connect them together and dedicate each to a different mission need.

Of course, they also need to develop the "semi-autonomous" rover, spacesuit and comm system.

If they had $6 billion in the bank today and hiring SpaceX and others to start work today for a mission launching in 10 years, I would say it could be doable, but they don't have funding and seem to be relying on SpaceX and others advancing development of their needed vehicles independently of the Mars One schedule.

David CMember

Posts: 466From: PasadenaRegistered: Apr 2012

posted 04-24-2013 10:08 AM
I'd like to be optimistic about this but there seem to be two major problems:

Funding, we can discuss quantities all day but as I see it the real problem is lack of persistent security of funds. Colonising Mars will take decades, sustained high level media attention for 20 or 30 years, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on re-supply and future waves of colonists actually appearing.

Colonise a planet with four people, you must be kidding. I suggest that critical mass is an order of magnitude larger.

Lots of other issues but to me those are show stoppers.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 04-24-2013 10:19 AM

quote:Originally posted by David C:Colonise a planet with four people...

Four people is only the first mission...

A new group of four astronauts will land on Mars every two years, steadily increasing the settlement's size.

Of course, that means Mars One will need to raise billions of dollars every couple of years after the first $6 billion mission is launched.

issman1Member

Posts: 951From: UKRegistered: Apr 2005

posted 04-24-2013 01:05 PM
I'm not sure whose more in need of a reality check: Inspiration Mars or Mars One? Surely the people behind this one-way trip must know by now that money is readily available for earthly war than colonising the Roman god of war.

And just in case I might appear cynical about their ambitious plan, I'm even more skeptical about ever seeing a human mission to Mars by the likes of NASA or ESA - in my lifetime!

RossMember

Posts: 426From: AustraliaRegistered: Jul 2003

posted 04-25-2013 09:06 AM

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:...they plan to land five modified Dragon capsules

I usually agree with you Robert, but really. Only two nations have ever landed a spacecraft on another planet. This company and any associated company has no experience at all in landers, yet they expect to land not 1, not 2 but 5 Dragon capsules plus an additional one with a rover on Mars and then a further manned capsule!

And there is still no design for a spacecraft that can safely carry people to Mars. The moon, yes. Asteroids, probably. Mars, no. The modified Dragon capsule is not suitable, as far as I can see, to safely reach Mars for a manned mission. That is also the problem with all the talk about NASA using present designs to go to Mars. They are not suitable without major modifications which nobody has agreed on the design. One example, radiation protection is still only in the theoretical stage and may very well add considerable weight to the capsule. Not need for unmanned capsules but essential for a manned capsule.

And that doesn't include...

The supply mission will be launched for Mars in January 2016

and

In 2018 the first settlement rover will land on Mars

In addition, after the first manned landing

A few weeks later, five cargo missions arrive, bringing additional living units, life support units, and a third rover.

Five more missions! Come on. Does anyone really believe that this company can land 11 cargo capsules, three rovers and a crewed capsule by 2023, and the first by 2016! No way, even if they get $6 billion in funding. I really can't take this crowd seriously.

Jay ChladekMember

Posts: 2270From: Bellevue, NE, USARegistered: Aug 2007

posted 04-25-2013 11:36 AM
I think the Gemini derived Eclipse project has a better chance of going off than this and THAT project I am very skeptical about.

daboltonMember

Posts: 419From: Seneca, IL, USRegistered: Jan 2009

posted 04-25-2013 07:12 PM
How could they precision land those so close together and if so wouldn't they burn the vehicle they land next too. Unless they are planning a way to tow the capsules into position after landing farther away the the habitat.

David CMember

Posts: 466From: PasadenaRegistered: Apr 2012

posted 04-26-2013 02:09 PM
I noticed a guy on another website commenting that he considered that it was a scam. I felt he was being cynical. Thinking about it a bit more, maybe he's right.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 04-26-2013 02:36 PM

quote:Originally posted by Ross:Only two nations have ever landed a spacecraft on another planet.

Just a point of fact: people and companies built the spacecraft that landed on Mars, not countries. And before they did, they didn't have any experience doing so either. And they didn't have the benefit of learning from those who have.

So I wouldn't write off SpaceX, or any other company, if well-enough funded, from pulling off a 10-year development of a Mars capable craft.

That said, I am in no way saying that Mars One fits that bill. Literally, they haven't the money to launch the engineering effort, let alone the missions they plan...

johntosullivanMember

Posts: 162From: Cork, Cork, IrelandRegistered: Oct 2005

posted 05-13-2013 05:43 AM
I just listened to Bas Lansdorp of Mars One on The Space Show and he's claiming that he will have a rover on Mars and a relay comms satellite in orbit of Mars in 2016.

How are people like this given the oxygen of publicity? In any other industry, they would be laughed off the stage.

TykeanautMember

Posts: 2095From: Worcestershire, England, UK.Registered: Apr 2008

posted 05-13-2013 09:43 AM
Aside from any technological problems the human aspect is something few appear to consider fully?

TykeanautMember

Posts: 2095From: Worcestershire, England, UK.Registered: Apr 2008

posted 05-28-2013 12:22 PM
I wouldn't want to be "holed-up" in an Apollo type command module for the length of time it takes to get to Mars. Forgive my ignorance if this is wrong, as perhaps a larger craft is being envisaged?

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 12-10-2013 09:38 AM

quote:Originally posted by johntosullivan:...he will have a rover on Mars and a relay comms satellite in orbit of Mars in 2016.

posted 12-30-2013 08:17 PM
I think it is important to realise that in order to land a man on the Moon in the 1960s, NASA had to fly 6 Mercury flights, 10 Gemini flights and 4 Apollo flights in order to make the first manned landing. Each one of these 20 flights were critically important in allowing everyone involved to learn new techniques and improve on mistakes made.

I just feel that with the Mars One organisation setting a goal of landing humans on Mars by 2023 and every two years after that, that it is an goal which simply needs more time to be thought out properly to ensure that they don't rush into anything that may ultimately end up costing someone their life. To me it's kind of like if NASA launched a manned lunar mission as their very first flight, with no previous missions under their belt, without testing other systems and flight hardware and software. Besides, $6 billion is a lot of money!

I'm all for going to Mars, it would be a dream come true. I'm showing my youth here by telling everyone that I wouldn't even be born for another 24 years after Gene Cernan left his last footprint on the lunar surface. What I'm saying is that I've never seen humans go beyond low-Earth orbit during my lifetime, which makes me kinda sad. I can't imagine how the Moonwalkers feel about no one following in their footsteps.

Anyone else think Mars One should attempt some landings on a place like the Moon to get some sort of understanding as to how their overall systems operate? The Moon is a lot closer to us than Mars let's put it that way!

I just think they're moving too fast.

gliderpilotukMember

Posts: 3352From: London, UKRegistered: Feb 2002

posted 06-03-2014 06:11 AM

Mars One and multi-award winning factual producer DSP (an Endemol company) today announced they have entered an international partnership to screen the mission to send the world's first one way astronauts to Mars.

Endemol is responsible for Big Brother. Let's hope they can raise the intellectual bar with this production (not hard).

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 10-08-2014 08:48 PM
Though not entirely surprising, a team of MIT students have found that Mars One's concept to send people on one-way missions to establish a settlement on the Red Planet offers a bleak picture of the outcome, SpacePolicyOnline reports.

The lead author, Sydney Do, a Ph.D. candidate in aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, said via email that in his view "the Mars One Concept is unsustainable" because of the current state of technology and its "aggressive expansion approach" of quickly adding more and more people rather than keeping the settlement at a fixed size for a period of time.

The paper acknowledges that the study was based on "the best available information” and the team is willing to update their analysis if more information becomes available.

Among the key conclusions:

If crops grown on Mars are the only food source, they will "produce unsafe oxygen levels in the habitat" resulting in the first crew fatality after about 68 days due to "suffocation from too low an oxygen partial pressure within the environment," the consequence of a complex series of events stemming from overproduction of oxygen by the plants.

In response, Mars One's Bas Lansdorp said he felt the students' analysis was incorrect but that his company did not have the time to reply to all the questions received from students.

TykeanautMember

Posts: 2095From: Worcestershire, England, UK.Registered: Apr 2008

posted 12-02-2014 09:19 AM
I literally cannot see this idea getting off the ground.

SpaceAholicMember

Posts: 3598From: Sierra Vista, ArizonaRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 12-02-2014 10:05 AM

If crops grown on Mars are the only food source, they will "produce unsafe oxygen levels in the habitat" resulting in the first crew fatality after about 68 days due to "suffocation from too low an oxygen partial pressure within the environment," the consequence of a complex series of events stemming from overproduction of oxygen by the plants.

Mop up the excess O2 with oxygen sequestration - problem solved.

TykeanautMember

Posts: 2095From: Worcestershire, England, UK.Registered: Apr 2008

posted 12-12-2014 05:30 AM
At a recent Chris Hadfield talk and book signing I attended, he said that he suffered about an 8% bone loss after returning after his last mission, particularly around the hip region. Happily he has now fully recovered and can run again quite easily along with other activities.

On a mission to Mars, would bone-loss continue to increase or reach a plateau? If degeneration continued would an astronaut ever recover upon return to the Earth?

Another problem Col. Hadfield spoke about was the radiation strikes visible when his eyes were closed. On a long trip improved shielding would surely be another necessity?

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 12-12-2014 07:49 AM
Mars One does not plan to return its colony members to Earth — it is a one-way trip — so it doesn't fall into their concerns.

That said, studies aboard the space station have shown that a daily regiment of exercise stabilizes bone and muscle loss to the point that, like Hadfield, crew members can recover once back on Earth. Next year's 12-month mission will inform this as well.

Radiation shielding is a known concern for Mars-bound craft, and there are several approaches that have been proposed. Orion's EFT-1 mission carried an advanced radiation sensor to measure the levels while the craft lingered in the lower van Allen belts as one data point towards this problem.

...both [Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. and Lockheed Martin] confirmed with SpaceNews that, since the completion of those study contracts, they have not received additional contracts from Mars One to continue work on those missions.

"SSTL delivered the concept study for the Mars One communications system last year," SSTL spokeswoman Joelle Sykes said Feb. 16. "There are no follow-on activities underway at the moment."

"Lockheed Martin has concluded the initial contract with Mars One in which we performed mission formulation studies and developed payload interface specifications to support the selection of a payload suite for the 2018 Mars robotic lander," the company said in a statement Feb. 17. "We continue to maintain an open channel of communications with Mars One and await initiation of the next phase of the program."

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 02-24-2015 07:55 PM
Mars One has suffered another setback with the loss of a television deal, SpaceNews reports.

Mars One co-founder and chief executive Bas Lansdorp said Feb. 24 that Mars One had terminated an agreement with entertainment company Endemol announced in 2014 to develop a "worldwide TV event" for the selection of the first Mars One crews. New Scientist first reported the terminated contract Feb. 20.

"We ended our cooperation with Endemol some time ago because we could not reach agreement on the details of the contract," Lansdorp said in response to a SpaceNews inquiry about the status of the agreement. He declined to go into greater detail about the decision to end the agreement, or when that decision was made.

...Endemol is best known for producing a variety of reality television shows, including "Big Brother." The original announcement raised speculation at the time that the Mars One selection process could also become a reality show competition. Mars One had previously stated it planned to raise funding for its missions in part through the sale of media rights.

Lansdorp said Mars One is now working with another production company, which produced a two-and-a-half-minute video the organization released in mid-February when it announced the selection of 100 finalists for the next round of the astronaut selection process. Lansdorp said Mars One was not announcing the name of its new production partner at this time.

RobonautMember

Posts: 253From: Solihull, West Mids, EnglandRegistered: Mar 2002

posted 02-28-2015 02:53 PM
Some news on the finances of the project in a YouTube update from one of the UK candidates Ryan MacDonald.

Interesting if this is confirmed. Maybe I can dream of seeing humans on Mars in my lifetime for a few minutes. I know I have no hope if I have to rely on our governments as they are too busy spending taxpayer money on building their empires.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 02-28-2015 05:27 PM
I find the timing is interesting. No sooner than Mars One confirming that its robotic missions have been on hold and that it lost its stated major source of funding, a reality show, does news come forth of full funding.

It also seems to be an odd way of releasing that news: through someone who may or may not be a part of your organization going forward depending on how the crew selection process advances.

But I guess we'll see what comes next...

domMember

Posts: 655From: Registered: Aug 2001

posted 03-17-2015 02:48 PM
Even one of the 100 finalists is now saying it's doomed!

domMember

Posts: 655From: Registered: Aug 2001

posted 03-19-2015 02:09 PM
Dr. Joseph Roche, who I've met and can say is a very professional young scientist, has now been kicked out of Mars One for voicing his worries about the project.

Robert PearlmanEditor

Posts: 34743From: Houston, TXRegistered: Nov 1999

posted 03-19-2015 02:14 PM
Well, he's now in good company with Canadian astronaut Julie Payette:

"We don't have the technology to go to Mars, with everything we know today, so I don't think that a marketing company and a TV-type of selection, is sending anybody anywhere," she said.

"So, if you meet any of those people, don't tell them they're courageous because the only courage they had was to sign up on a website."

Mars One recently published a video in which Bas Lansdorp, CEO and Co-founder of Mars One, replies to recent criticism concerning the feasibility of Mars One's human mission to Mars. The video and the transcript of the interview can be found below.

What do you think of the recent news articles that doubt the feasibility of Mars One?

At Mars One we really value good criticism because it helps us to improve our mission. We get a lot of criticism from our advisors and that is also exactly what we want from them.

The recent bad press about Mars One was largely caused by an article on medium.com, which contains a lot of things that are not true. For example, the suggestion was made that our candidates were selected on the basis on how much money they donate to Mars One. That is simply not true and this is very easy to find that on our website. There are a lot of current Round Three candidates that did not make any donations to Mars One and there are also lot of people that did not make it to the third round that contributed a lot to Mars One. The two things are not related at all and to say that they are is simply a lie.

The article also states that there were only 2,700 applications for Mars One which is not true. We offered the reporter, the first journalist ever, access to our list of 200,000 applications but she was not interested in that. It seems that she is more interested in writing a sensational article about Mars One than in the truth.

Concerns have been voiced about the thoroughness of the astronaut selection process. What is your response to that?

We started our astronaut selection with over 200,000 applications that were submitted online. The application included a video and a lot of psychological questions for our candidates. We used that to narrow down the candidates to about 1000 that had to do a medical check, which was very similar to the check for NASA astronauts. All the remaining candidates then underwent an interview. The interview and all other parts of the selection process were lead by Norbert Kraft, our Chief Medical Officer. He has worked on astronaut selection for 5 years at the Japanese Space Agency and at NASA he researched crew composition for long duration space missions.

Interestingly, it is not so complex to determine who is not qualified to go to Mars, which is what we have been doing so far. Our next step is to find out, from the people who we think might be qualified, which ones have what it takes. The selection process will be much more thorough from here on. We will bring our candidates together, we will put them through team and individual challenges, there will be much longer interviews, and there will be much a bigger selection committee. This is the way we will determine who are good enough to enter our training process.

Will there be a revenue share between the candidates and Mars One when candidates participate in Mars One related commercial activities?

We are preparing a contract that our Round Three candidates will need to sign that deals with commercial activities. It is very important that Mars One controls which Mars One related commercial activities our candidates can participate in because we need to make sure that the different activities do not conflict with each other. There will be a revenue share because our candidates do not receive a salary from Mars One yet. That's why it is fair that our candidates get a part of what Mars One receives for those commercial activities. It is very different in my case because I get a salary from Mars One. When I do a keynote speech, the entire speaking fee goes to Mars One.

Actually, a lot of our candidates have indicated that they are not interested in receiving part of those revenues. Many want all the money to go to Mars One's mission - but that is really up to them.

Does Mars One have a production company and a broadcaster for the astronaut selection documentary series?

We were very close to a deal with Endemol owned Darlow Smithson productions but in the end the deal fell apart on final details in the contract and therefore Mars One ended that cooperation. We have worked with a new production company since November of last year. They are currently selling the documentary series to an international broadcaster. There is no deal in place yet but it is looking very promising and there is a lot of interest.

Is a $6 billion budget enough for such a complex mission?

NASA's lowest cost estimate that I have ever seen was about $35 billion but let's not forget that the Mars One mission is very different. We are organizing a mission of permanent settlement where we do not need to worry about the return trip, which is where most of the complexity lies. The return trip involves developing bigger rockets that can get the systems to Mars, developing a bigger landing system to land the large components for the return mission on Mars, and developing a whole new launch system that can launch from Mars while even from Earth a launch is very difficult.

Our $6 billion cost figure comes from good discussions that we have had with established aerospace companies from around the world. They have already been building systems for the ISS and for unmanned missions to Mars, which are similar to the ones we need. We are very confident that our budget will be enough.

How is the funding of the mission progressing?

The Mars One mission will primarily be funded through investments. We have had a very successful investment round in 2013, which has financed all the things that we have done up to now. We have actually come to an agreement with a consortium of investors late last year for a much bigger round of investment.

Unfortunately, the paper work of that deal is taking much longer than we expected. I now think that it will be completed before the summer of this year, which means that we will not be in time to finance the follow up studies that Lockheed Martin needs to do for our first unmanned mission in 2018.

This unfortunately means that we will have to delay the first unmanned mission to 2020. Delaying our first unmanned mission by two years also means that all the other missions will move by the same period of time, with our first human landing now planned for 2027.

So there is a two year delay, what does that mean for Mars One?

Going to Mars is very difficult, for example NASA has been talking about going to Mars in 20 years for more than 45 years now. Of course, NASA needs a return mission which is much more complex than our one way mission but it shows how difficult Mars exploration is. At the same time, Mars One has already achieved a lot.

We have had our first contract with Paragon Space Development Corporation for the suits and life support systems, our first contract with Lockheed Martin for our unmanned mission, we have a very impressive board of ambassadors with a nobel prize laureate, and a great advisory board with people like Mason Peck, NASA's former Chief Technologist. I believe we are on track and moving in the right direction.

We may have a two year delay now but we show that people are interested in Mars One and in Mars exploration. People want this to happen and it is my conviction that as long as we can show that we are moving in the right direction, that we are getting the right companies under contract, and we are getting these contracts done, then the world will accept that we have a delay in getting our humans to Mars.

Additionally, is it really a failure if we land our first crew two, four, six, or even eight years late? I would be extremely proud if we could make that happen and Mars One is still fully committed to keeping that on track.